W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2000

Re: FYI -- draft ietf uri doc

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 18:31:39 -0700
To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
cc: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <200009021831.aa17876@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu>
>A few reasons, including the fact that informational RFCs "don't
>count" (except to marketroids who view all RFCs as standards, when

The IETF has a standards process for many reasons, but one of the main
ones is so that people are less likely to be confused over what is
and is not considered standardized.  A metastandard consisting of
various bits that are not at the same level of standardization
defeats that purpose.

>I disagree that having a metadocument is inappropriate -- we need
>one reference point for URIs, and as long as we continue to develop
>the space by independant documentation (which does seem to be the
>best way to to do it), the simplest, easiest to keep-up-to-date
>path is a metaspec.

That sounds informational to me.  I reference informational RFCs
all the time, so I don't see the problem.


Received on Saturday, 2 September 2000 21:31:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:02 UTC